TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Why did you and your husband participate in a large Visa IPO in March 2008, especially with legislation affecting credit card companies at that time? Did you consider it a conflict of interest? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your question. Are you suggesting it's acceptable for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? You participated in the IPO while being Speaker of the House. Do you believe that wasn’t a conflict of interest or at least appeared to be one? It only appears that way if you base it on a false premise, which isn’t true. I’m unclear on which part you find untrue. Can you clarify? Yes, I can act upon an investment.

Senator Hawley introduced legislation to ban members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President from owning or trading individual stocks. When asked if he was in favor of the legislation, the speaker responded that he likes it conceptually. He stated that Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information and made a fortune with her husband, which he finds disgraceful. He would need to study the legislation carefully, but conceptually, he likes it.

I was asked about my husband and I's participation in a large Visa IPO deal back in February, especially considering major legislation affecting credit card companies was being considered in the House at the time. The question was whether I considered it a conflict of interest, being Speaker of the House. My response is: What is the point of this line of questioning? It was asked if I thought it was alright for a speaker to accept such a favorable stock deal. Well, we did. And at the time you were Speaker of the House, you don't think it was a conflict of interest or have the appearance of a conflict of interest? It only has the appearance of a conflict if you are operating on a false premise. It's not true, and that's that. I would not act upon an investment.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

BlackRock is under investigation for investing $429 million into the Chinese military. The US government has initiated a full-scale investigation, but allegedly knew about BlackRock's business dealings prior to informing the public. Nine out of ten congresspeople trading BlackRock stock were reportedly selling it. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna allegedly sold $130,000 worth of this stock months before the investigation.

House oversight claims to have bank records indicating that a Chinese energy company paid three members of the Biden family through a third party. The purpose of these payments is unclear. The speaker refuses to comment on the matter, citing the history of inaccuracies and lies from House Republicans on this issue.

Speaker 0 says they are transparent about what they’re doing and are pushing Speaker Johnson to do more. They started looking at Speaker Johnson’s PACs and how many of his PACs turn money back around to daycare and health care clinics and the like. They note the incredible amounts of money involved and that this concerns one person, but he is the Speaker of the House. They emphasize that this is not a partisan issue for them.

Speaker 0 denies any knowledge or discussion about his business or his family's business with his son or anyone else. Speaker 1 reveals that Stephanie, who was vice president, approved a response to a 2015 story about Hunter Biden's connection to Burisma Energy Company. It is also mentioned that Biden's family received less than $1,000,000 from a Chinese firm.

The speaker is asked about accepting and participating in a large Visa IPO deal in February while serving as Speaker of the House, given pending legislation affecting credit card companies. The questioner asks if the speaker believes it was appropriate to accept a favorable stock deal and whether it constituted a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. The speaker denies any conflict of interest, stating it only appears so if based on a false premise. They deny acting upon an investment.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The speaker questions the Energy Department head about who truly runs the department, suggesting it could be mega-corporations or foreign billionaires funding conferences. The speaker brings up a report that over 130 officials in the energy department reported over 2,700 trades of shares, bonds, and options in companies that ethics officers said was directly related to the agency's work. The speaker reminds the Energy Department head that she previously stated she did not own individual stocks, which the speaker claims was false. The Energy Department head admits she was incorrect and believed she had sold all individual stocks. The speaker points out that the Energy Department head testified she didn't own any individual stocks, but didn't sell the stocks for another month, and waited another month before informing the committee. The speaker asks why she misled them and what she was hiding, also asking if Proterra was one of the stocks. The speaker notes the Energy Department head was on the board of directors at Proterra, made millions in stock options, and promoted Proterra.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to respond to an accusation that Nancy Pelosi became rich through insider trading. Speaker 1 responded that the accusation is ridiculous. Speaker 1 supports stopping members of Congress from trading stocks, not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but to instill confidence in the American people. Speaker 1 has no concern about investments made over time. Speaker 1's husband is into investments, but it has nothing to do with insider information. Speaker 1 stated that the president is projecting because he has his own exposure.

Former White House aides allegedly warned Speaker 1 about potential conflicts of interest, but Speaker 1 denies receiving any such warnings. State Department official George Kent testified that he raised the issue to Speaker 1's staff, but Speaker 1 claims to have never heard about it. Speaker 1's staff allegedly told Kent that they had no capacity to address the matter. Speaker 1 suggests that Kent may have made the comment because Speaker 1's son was gravely ill at the time.

Speaker 1 denies being warned about potential conflicts of interest by former White House aides. Speaker 0 mentions that State Department official Mr. Kent testified about raising the issue, but Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 1 claims that the warning was never communicated to their staff and suggests that it may have been due to their son's critical condition at the time.

House oversight claims to have bank records indicating that a Chinese energy company made payments to three family members of Speaker 0 through a third party. The purpose of these payments remains undisclosed, as Speaker 0 declines to comment on the matter.

The speaker analyzes Ilhan Omar’s official financial disclosures and advances a narrative that Est Crew LLC (referred to as Est Crew Winery), a Santa Rosa, California winery linked to Omar, is fraudulent and morally problematic. They first cite the 2023 congressional financial disclosure showing Est Crew Winery valued at $15,000, with Omar hardly earning income from it. They then cite the 2024 filing showing the same company valued at $5,000,000, claiming Omar’s income is now sufficient to pay rent and labeling the growth as “incredible” and suspect. The speaker then examines the winery’s public presence to support the claim it is real. They reference Estrero’s social media pages (Facebook and Instagram) with last posts in 2023 and no presence on X (Twitter), suggesting a lack of ongoing activity. They check the official website, which describes Est Crew as “winemakers and memory curators” with a brand portfolio led by unnamed individuals, but note there are no apparent wine sales or activities listed. They visit Google Street View of the winery location and report an empty parking lot, arguing the business is not operational or properly named. Attempts to contact the winery are described: calling the phone number on the webpage results in a busy signal after multiple tries. The speaker then asserts the winery is fake, citing a New York Post claim that Ilhan Omar’s wealth “skyrocketed” from being “one of the poorest members of Congress” to “one of the richest,” with amounts suggesting the winery is fraudulent. They state a lawsuit accusing Tim Minette, Omar’s “third husband, no relation,” of swindling investors and defrauding them, with a connection noted to Keith Ellison (Minnesota’s attorney general who “used to work for him”) and a suggestion that Ellison has not investigated Somali fraud. The speaker concludes that the winery “is not worth $5,000,000” and “doesn’t even exist,” describing the company as fraudulent and demanding investigation. They label the entire enterprise as a lie, though state that it is not a lie for Omar in terms of her financial disclosures, which allegedly list substantial income and net worth tied to this fake winery. The closing phrase refers to the claim that the winery is “the devil’s lie.”

Former White House aides allegedly warned Speaker 1 about potential conflicts of interest, but Speaker 1 denies receiving any such warnings. State Department official George Kent testified that he raised the issue to Speaker 1's staff, but Speaker 1 claims to have never heard about it. Speaker 1's staff allegedly told Kent that they had no bandwidth to address the matter. Speaker 1 suggests that Kent may have made the comment because Speaker 1's son was critically ill at the time.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about his son's involvement in a Ukrainian energy company facing corruption charges. Speaker 1 claims to have no knowledge of his son's activities and trusts him. Speaker 0 questions the lack of accountability, but Speaker 1 deflects by mentioning Trump's family. Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing and states that there is no evidence against his son. When asked about guardrails if elected, Speaker 1 asserts that his relatives will not engage in foreign business due to the current administration's controversies. No foreign business dealings will occur.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

A member of congress was asked if members of congress and their spouses should be banned from trading individual stocks while serving in congress. The representative answered, "No." They stated they did not know about a five-month review, but if people aren't reporting stock trades, they should be. The representative stated that because this is a free market economy, people should be able to participate in it.

Speaker 0: 'So what do we get for a trillion dollars a year to the US military? Do we get anything in return?' Speaker 1: 'We get some enhanced stock portfolios.' 'I haven't voted for a penny for Ukraine, I'm proud of that. It's not my dadgum war.' 'Some of those contractors we described get a multi multi billion with a B dollar, no bid contract.' 'And who do you think has bought stock in that, in that company? Members of Congress, two weeks prior to the president making that official notice.' 'Return on their, 506100% return on their investment.' 'But why is impossible as to ban stock trading for members of Congress? That's a great idea.' 'I have the bill to do it, and that's why we have a bipartisan group, we've got a bill, but it's not going anywhere.' 'Why? Because too many members of Congress, I mean, we were told by leadership that, you know, these guys can't afford to be here.'